astrological age?

[Tahuti]

Hum, what you quoted was an example of ancient astronomy, not ancient astrology. Astrology is the belief that celestial bodies influence our personality and destiny in a measurable way.

Many inquiries in what is today considered astronomy were fuelled by inquiries in astrology. Of course, this doesn't make astrology any more valid than say econometrics (which occasionally gives us some useful insights in maths and political economy despite being BS).

 

[duckstab]

I am Aries, of course.
If anything, my age has only just began

I'm an Aries by birth as well, but I'm thinking of having it changed legally.

 

[Hygro]

Fair enough. The scientific wording of that phrase should be "controlled experiments have demonstrated that any prediction/interpretation that seems right can be explained by the product of vagueness, placebo and suggestion".

"Controlled experiments have demonstrated that any prediction chosen to be measured by the experiment has proven in the context of the experiment that...." which despite the strict wording, has really only one weak link, which is that what they are measuring to examine astrology has never conclusively shown astrology is pure vagueness, placebo, or suggestion. It has shown that the )application of) astrology contains a lot of placebo, vagueness, and suggestion.

Which is another way of saying that science hasn't figured out a good way to measure it where it needs to be measured to explain what it is. i.e. that it still could be just ambiguity and placebo, but since [/i]placebo isn't just one thing[/I] (i.e. multiple causes of placebo times multiple types of placebo) nor is it a dismissible concept. Indeed what sets astrology apart could be that it is not so much as be creating its own placebo (sure that too) but could have by some happenstance be highly correlated with a purely coincidental other pattern of placebo replicated through society caused by something outside the purview of what astrology studies. And that's something that astrology might, let's say for the sake of argument, actually be very good at predicting but controlled experiments studying astrology on the terms informed by astrology's own self myths but dictated by the experiment completely and utterly fail to capture.

 

[luiz]

Many inquiries in what is today considered astronomy were fuelled by inquiries in astrology. Of course, this doesn't make astrology any more valid than say econometrics (which occasionally gives us some useful insights in maths and political economy despite being BS).

Econometrics is just a statistical method, there's no BS there. It's mathematics. The problem is applying this method with insufficient rigor, and drawing conclusions which are not warranted by the data.

Econometrics was developed exactly to help us deal better with shaky assumptions of cause and effect.

 

[Tahuti]

The problem is applying this method with insufficient rigor, and drawing conclusions which are not warranted by the data.

Econometrics was developed exactly to help us deal better with shaky assumptions of cause and effect.

By "applying this method with insufficient rigor, and drawing conclusions which are not warranted by the data" to an even greater degree?

 

[luiz]

By "applying this method with insufficient rigor, and drawing conclusions which are not warranted by the data" to an even greater degree?

Not really. Economic analysis became much more nuanced and sophisticated after the introduction of better statistical models. People today are much more careful about making claims like "1% increase in interest rate leads to 1.5% decrease in product" or the like. In the past they'd just run a regression of interest rate changes and GDP changes and start drawing conclusions. Kinda like brain-dead sociologists calculate the mean income of blacks and whites, find a huge difference and conclude that racism is massive in the workforce. If they knew anything about econometrics (or had a brain, but I digress), they'd know it's not that simple.

 

[warpus]

Astrology is to Astronomy is what an old men yelling at clouds is to Physics, right?

 

[Tahuti]

Not really. Economic analysis became much more nuanced and sophisticated after the introduction of better statistical models. People today are much more careful about making claims like "1% increase in interest rate leads to 1.5% decrease in product" or the like. In the past they'd just run a regression of interest rate changes and GDP changes and start drawing conclusions. Kinda like brain-dead sociologists calculate the mean income of blacks and whites, find a huge difference and conclude that racism is massive in the workforce. If they knew anything about econometrics (or had a brain, but I digress), they'd know it's not that simple.

The problem is that you are very much in the mindset of statistical models and a lot of us just buy into it in the first place. Econometrics doesn't solve that. Econometrics makes it worse. The parallels between statistics, econometrics with astrology is striking.

 

[luiz]

The problem is that you are very much in the mindset of statistical models and a lot of us just buy into it in the first place. Econometrics doesn't solve that. Econometrics makes it worse. The parallels between statistics, econometrics with astrology is striking.

I don't know what you mean. As I explained econometrics made all analysis more nuanced and cautious. It's also now much easier to point to flaws in analysis and predictions.

Econometrics is just the application of statistical methods to economic problems. It's not necessarily about building grand predictive economic models. You can use it to analyze past events with great accuracy.

Denouncing econometrics because of bad applications is pure obscurantism.

 

[Hygro]

But that logic holds true of denouncing astrology because of bad application of astrology. Also included is bad application of the study of astrology, which is itself using bad application of astrology to study astrology. This post is presupposing a good astrology, of course.

 

[luiz]

But that logic holds true of denouncing astrology because of bad application of astrology. Also included is bad application of the study of astrology, which is itself using bad application of astrology to study astrology. This post is presupposing a good astrology, of course.

The difference is that econometrics is really just mathematics. There's nothing intrinsically "wrong" with it. Astrology is by definition a form (or multiple forms) of divination. There is something intrinsically wrong with divination, namely, that it has never been shown to work. Mathematics has a more solid rep.

 

[Borachio]

Astrology is to Astronomy is what an old men yelling at clouds is to Physics, right?

Well, sort of.

Except that Astrology was indistinguishable from Astronomy at one stage, I think.

 

[Tahuti]

The difference is that econometrics is really just mathematics. There's nothing intrinsically "wrong" with it. Astrology is by definition a form (or multiple forms) of divination. There is something intrinsically wrong with divination, namely, that it has never been shown to work. Mathematics has a more solid rep.

Mathematics HAS indeed a more solid reputation. However, maths that are malapplied are malapplied, even if the maths behind it are otherwise good. Does it make sense to use maths for engineering and physics? Yes. To use maths to make models that predict human behavior, not so much.

 

[luiz]

Mathematics HAS indeed a more solid reputation. However, maths that are malapplied are malapplied, even if the maths behind it are otherwise good. Does it make sense to use maths for engineering and physics? Yes. To use maths to make models that predict human behavior, not so much.

But it's not only about predicting, it's about measuring stuff that already happened. We can indeed explain past economic events as the sum of many variables, and measure the effects of each, to statistically significant degrees. This gives us some insights on how people could behave in the future on similar circumstances, but of course no certainty. The models which are built using econometric tools are just that, models.

It make a lot of sense to use statistics in economics. Economics is a far better subject today than it was 70 or 80 years ago. As I said econometrics refined and toned down the boldness and absoluteness of the predictions.

 

[warpus]

Well, sort of.

Except that Astrology was indistinguishable from Astronomy at one stage, I think.

Same with old men yelling at clouds and physics though.

 

[Borachio]

Yeah. OK. I concede your point, sir.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

The problem is that most of them are so vague that nearly anything can be seen as a proof of them.

Are we discussing the bible now?